Thanks committee. States intention to provide overview
of HB 2148. Adds he supports HB 2148. Provides history of the current
statutes governing budget. Explains purpose of the proposed budget model. Provides
that it would not take effect until the 2005-2007 budget year. Adds that
there is no emergency clause. Introduces concepts presented in the bill.
Refers to section two as the major component of the bill.

064

Chair Krummel

Call attention to line twenty-two and provides
further explanation.

074

Chair Krummel

Overviews page two of bill. Lists requirements of
the bill. Expresses desire to empower agencies to be proactive by
establishing a contingency reserve. Expands on policies for the recover of
costs.

104

Chair Krummel

Highlights of section three.

111

Chair Krummel

Summarizes section four.

115

Chair Krummel

Outlines section five. Identifies standards and
objectives of the Governor as outlined by the bill.

125

Chair Krummel

Delineates line eleven of page three relating to Department
of Administrative Services (DAS). States this would provide the legislature with
further oversight.

133

Chair Krummel

Summarizes section six on the collection of revenue

142

Chair Krummel

Comments on section seven relating to debt
structure. Asserts that the state would have been better prepared with regard
to its current financial position had sections six and seven already
implemented.

161

Chair Krummel

Highlights section eight.

166

Chair Krummel

Explains section nine relating to capital assets and
the utilization of funds.

177

Chair Krummel

Illustrates on page six, line thirty-six the outcome
of un-obligated funds. Points out that budget manager cannot reserve more
than five percent of their funds.

187

Chair Krummel

Continues that HB 2148 is a model that has worked
before, adding that as he used the model as mayor of Wilsonville. States that
the bill will end false expectations relating to budgets. Mentions that this
bill will be amended and that he recommends changes. Supports public,
gubernatorial, and legislative participation in shaping the bill. States
desire for bill to succeed. Invites the committee members to ask questions.

211

Rep. Prozanski

Asks whether analysis of the model has been done in
terms of additional costs for implementation.

216

Chair Krummel

Answers that although guidance was sought for the
model, analysis has not yet been done.

227

Rep. Prozanski

Inquires if the model will be cyclical or recurring
being that it has a length of five years.

232

Chair Krummel

Envisions a rolling period so that every two years the
plan would be updated. Adds that the flexibility inherent in the model would
allow for amendments and additions to the plan. Anticipates additionally both
a long-term and short-term plans for the model.

250

Rep. Prozanski

Insinuates that the measure would not be the specific
model or that it would be the current service plan for all agencies.

258

Chair Krummel

Answers that HB 2148 would become the budget model
and the bill or one like it would create the model that the state would
subscribe to.Adds that current
service level budgeting could then be eliminated.

267

Rep. Nelson

States that the current service level model appears
to be disliked by a majority of her constituents. Wonders why a zero-based
budget was not incorporated into the bill.

292

Chair Krummel

Counters that his intention was to lay out a structure,
then begin conversation as to which language should be incorporated. Answers
that as to inclusion of a strict, zero-based budget, that there is room in
this bill for that, as well as for other changes. Reiterates his intention to
create a basic structure with an understanding of changes to language.

313

Rep. Nelson

Questions whether it would be better to have one
bill or several relating to different aspect of this model.

332

Chair Krummel

Comments that “politics is the art of possible”.
Continues that if an omnibus bill would be the preferable method of
implementation. States he does not desire a package in the form of multiple
bills, where some are not passed.

378

Rep. Nelson

Worries that the committee should have the Governor
present his own concepts for the committee. Stresses the need to hear from
Governor and have him present his concepts.

TAPE 6,A

003

Rep. Nelson

Continues. Expresses belief that in order to develop
a bill of this magnitude numerous work sessions and hearing and hearing will
be required to gain further information.

028

Chair Krummel

Returns that he has requested time with the Governor
and will seek input from his office as to this model. Recognizes the fact
that this will be a drawn out process. States that this is a non-partisan,
collective issue meant to enhance the state. Reiterates that this will be a
long process.

076

Rep. Nelson

Agrees. Remarks on lack of commonality in decisions
regarding the budget. Questions how the public would better understand the
use of their tax paying dollars.

100

Chair Krummel

Points out a resolution he has filed, HCR 1, that sets
out broad priorities involving allocation and use of funds. Adds that there
are constitutional mandates and national mandates that also help to explain
this. Asserts that the legislature needs to articulate its priorities to the
public through the media, legislators, etc. Adds that in sections three and
four of HB 2148 priorities are outlined for this.

158

Rep. Nelson

Discusses other programs she is concerned with.
Comments on the budget process with regard to the hungry, the elderly, and
special needs individuals. Indicates she would like a portion of this bill
relating to be implemented immediately, so at least the immediate needs of
the people will be alleviated.

221

Chair Krummel

Comments that if it were possible for this bill to
take effect next biennium, he would gladly add an emergency clause. Reiterates
the informational purpose of this meeting. Calls for committee to recognize
that utilization of principles is lost for 2003-2005 budget due to the fact
that budgets have already been submitted by agencies. Adds that this is the
reasoning behind a rolling-plan

336

Rep. Nelson

Summarizes feelings. States it is critically
important the committee take a leadership role and makes critical changes now.
Calls for look into state priorities and the creation of requirements,
limits, and policies.

TAPE 5,B

003

Rep. Nelson

Reiterates the necessity of criteria and intent in
any budget plan. Voices disquiet the legislature never receive a budget in
totality.

042

Rep. Mabrey

Comments the bill is a solid and concise piece of
work, which builds on the concept of continuity presented by Rep. Nelson. Comments
on the tempting nature inherent in unallocated agency funds.

092

Chair Krummel

Agrees that there is always a danger and that a
chain-of-command is necessary in the allocation of funds. States that Rep.
Nelson eloquently made her case for why the bill should become effective upon
passage, but points out that other members may not see it that way.

147

Rep. Nelson

Thanks Rep. Krummel. Begins discussion on
non-essential spending due absence of incentives for reserving or for
transferring funds.

181

Chair Krummel

Thanks Rep. Nelson and continues her discussion on
incentives. Adds that would need to be taken up by a different bill.